… John Edwards makes clear that he’s handing over mandatory medical enforcement to them as soon as he is inaugurated.
Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.If someone did not submit proof of coverage, the Internal Revenue Service would notify a newly established regional or state-based health-care agency (which Edwards has dubbed a Health Care Market[sic]).
Those regional agencies would then evaluate whether the uninsured individual was eligible for Medicare (which covers those over 65), Medicaid (which covers the indigent), or S-CHIP (the State Children’s Health Insurance Program which targets the working poor).
If the individual was not eligible for either of those existing public programs, the regional-health care agency would enroll the individual into the lowest cost health-care plan available in that area. The lowest-cost option could be a new Medicare-like public option or a private insurance plan.
The newly covered individual would not only have access to health benefits but would also be responsible for making monthly payments with the help of a tax credit.
The exact size of the financial obligation would vary according to a person’s income (lower-income Americans would receive larger tax credits).
If a person did not meet his or her monthly financial obligation for a set period of time (perhaps a year, perhaps longer) the Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual’s wages for purposes of collecting “back premiums with interest and collection costs.”
Isn’t that special?
(h/t Jay Tea)
Comment by JHoward on 12/1 @ 8:21 pm #
Hey, practice makes perfect. You know, cost to society and all that.
Comment by Darleen on 12/1 @ 8:26 pm #
JH
If you’re trying to be snide, forget it, because I’m about contractual obligations … be it landlord/tenent, buying a car, or raising a child.
TANSTAAFL, dear.
Comment by Darleen on 12/1 @ 8:28 pm #
Oh … and the IRS does not share any private information even in child support cases.
Comment by Scrapiron on 12/1 @ 8:31 pm #
No one in the United States is without complete medical care. Ran a fire call last night where a building was destroyed and a young man severely burned (3rd degree) on parts of his body. I know for a fact the man had no private medical insurance. He was immediately placed on a medical flight to a trauma center and then on another medical flight to a University medical (burn) center. The government will now pick up all of the medical expenses in one way or another and the young man was not denied medical treatment at any level, from EMS to a speciality hospital. Why the politicians insist on lying to the American people is what I can’t figure out. Do they do it simply to keep more people thinking they must depend on that politician for everything in their life? If so they are more stupid than I always thought the average American was.
Comment by gahrie on 12/1 @ 8:42 pm #
Hey Edwards is just getting started. In his second term, he’s going to determine that all Americans are entitled to legal representation, and he’s going to set up an identical system for retaining lawyers……
Comment by JHoward on 12/1 @ 8:46 pm #
Well, except for having your private credit ruined by the State, suffering debtor prison, those other features of damn, I really can’t afford this, Governor.
WELL, WE EDWARDSES CAN’T AFFORD THE COSTS TO SOCIETY, MISTER!
Comment by Jeffersonian on 12/1 @ 8:55 pm #
And here I was, the eternal optimist, thinking that the DMV would get put in charge of medical care.
Comment by McGehee on 12/1 @ 9:01 pm #
It’s the money.
Comment by Rick on 12/1 @ 9:13 pm #
Since the Democrats are fundamentally an authoritarian party, it’s good that their silky pony makes the point explicitly.
Cordially…
Comment by Bill D. Cat on 12/1 @ 9:19 pm #
Fellow Americans …. welcome to Canada .
Comment by B Moe on 12/1 @ 10:24 pm #
Do they do it simply to keep more people thinking they must depend on that politician for everything in their life?
Is that a trick question?
Comment by B Moe on 12/1 @ 11:44 pm #
“If a person did not meet his or her monthly financial obligation for a set period of time (perhaps a year, perhaps longer) the Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual’s wages for purposes of collecting “back premiums with interest and collection costs.”
But they can’t listen in if a terrorist calls me, right?
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/1 @ 11:52 pm #
suffering debtor prison
Never thought of that before. If a supposed “deadbeat dad” is jailed for non-payment and genuinely cannot pay, how is that different from old-time debtor’s prison, which is supposedly part of the bad ol’ days?
Comment by Spiny Norman on 12/2 @ 1:20 am #
#13
It’s more politically correct?
Comment by The Lost Dog on 12/2 @ 3:17 am #
Well. All I can see for our future is that WE ARE FUCKED!
Thank you very much.
There is no turning back. These idiots have had control of our kids education for too many years, and we are about to reap the whirlwind.
How much scarier can it get? My eight year old son is drowning in this crap, and goes silent whenever I try to talk to him about it. He refuses to give any credence to what I have to say. Any credence? He refuses to even listen to me.
I am the enemy! And it hurts.
Do you think that if I wrapped him in duct tape and stashed him in the closet it would help? Or would the Silky Pony be there tomorrow with his scissors to cut my son loose and then stick those scissors into my eye socket?
Yup. Stick a fork in America. We are about done….
I am pretty close to my son, but just like the left, he closes his ears and refuses to listen to anything that resembles logic. Human nature is not something that he is aware of, or that he even appears to have on his radar.
Oh well. That’s the way the “adult” children who dominate the left (and our education system) want it to be, and apparently, that is the emerging “reality”…
Spooky stuff, huh?
Comment by Sean M. on 12/2 @ 3:38 am #
People who advocate plans like this often remark that many states have laws which require drivers to have car insurance, but I’m not aware of any states which sign you up against your will for shitty car insurance policies when you let your coverage lapse.
Comment by Attila Girl on 12/2 @ 5:00 am #
Also, one can elect not to drive, and one cannot (apparently) elect to get along without health insurance under the Edwards plan. How young people and the underemployed are supposed to get through the rough financial spots in their lives without this option is beyond me.
Haven’t most people gone through a period of time when it was like, “okay, I’ll go to a clinic if I get sick, and I’ll get the family to chip in if something goes bad, but I HONESTLY can’t afford insurance right now”?
Comment by Merovign on 12/2 @ 5:42 am #
“Vote John Edwards – because Kim Jong Il isn’t eligible to run!”
I really, seriously am amazed at how screwed up some people are. Edwards is only a “success” (financially) because he’s a completely unscrupulous crapbag lawyer, who specializes in emotional appeals and channelling in court.
The fact that he’s even in the running makes Democrats everywhere look like the special ed class in a remedial school.
And what’s with the idiot press corps? I mean, we know they’re tilted so far left they have to be filmed sideways, but are none of them going to point out how thuggish Pony’s plans are?
Comment by Sean M. on 12/2 @ 6:19 am #
But you HONESTLY can’t be trusted to make that decision. It would be much better if the IRS signed you up for health insurance without consulting you and then took your money when you didn’t bother to pay for the health plan you never signed up for on your own.
See how much better that system is? No? Then maybe you’d like to spend some time in federal prison for health care evasion.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/2 @ 7:07 am #
That’s it, Edwards gets elected, I’m moving to France.
Comment by Eric J on 12/2 @ 8:27 am #
Now combine mandatory, government-monitored medical care with all of those spurious psychological studies trying to prove that Conservatives are mentally defective compared to Liberals…
Comment by N. O'Brain on 12/2 @ 8:28 am #
“Scratch a lefty, you’ll find a totalitarian.”
-Kim du Toit
Comment by Rusty on 12/2 @ 8:41 am #
Attila girl. Individual liberty is about choice. This is,” I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Writ large. By a very large person. Holding a stick. With a nail in it.
Comment by SarahW on 12/2 @ 9:54 am #
Yup. Stick a fork in America. We are about done….
Well, if you associated America with personal responsibility and freedom, yeah. Even if you don’t think the fork is in the meat, there are plenty of people with brining bags and serious expressions on their faces standing next to a busted-looking eagle.
Comment by SarahW on 12/2 @ 9:55 am #
Should be quotes around “Yup, stick a fork…done”
Comment by SGT Ted on 12/2 @ 10:19 am #
If a supposed “deadbeat dad†is jailed for non-payment and genuinely cannot pay, how is that different from old-time debtor’s prison, which is supposedly part of the bad ol’ days?
It’s more politically correct?
Because IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!
They can do anything once that’s invoked. Just ask Family Court.
Comment by SGT Ted on 12/2 @ 10:21 am #
How much scarier can it get? My eight year old son is drowning in this crap, and goes silent whenever I try to talk to him about it. He refuses to give any credence to what I have to say. Any credence? He refuses to even listen to me.
I am the enemy! And it hurts.
You needto get him the fuck out of public school. Seriously. Before it’s too late for HIM, too.
Comment by B Moe on 12/2 @ 10:46 am #
“Then maybe you’d like to spend some time in federal prison for health care evasion.”
I started to laugh, then suddenly realized it really isn’t funny. At all.
Comment by Darleen on 12/2 @ 11:06 am #
Wonder how the Christian Scientists are going to feel about paying for insurance they won’t use?
Comment by Kresh on 12/2 @ 11:15 am #
The left claims the current Govt. uses law enforcement to impliment the “police state” and they plan to use the IRS? What’s the difference again? It’s not like they’ll turn OFF the so-called “police state” if and when they get into power.
They really know how to ratchet things up, don’t they? Christ on a pogo stick, their totalitarian machine goes to 11!
Looks like we got work to do if we’re gonna catch up. /eyeroll /sarcasm /etc, etc
Comment by Darleen on 12/2 @ 11:25 am #
Lost Dog
Home school…. NOW.
Comment by Swen Swenson on 12/2 @ 11:37 am #
Reminds me of how our fair state collects child support payments. Should the custodial spouse complain, the state will step in and make collections. But that costs money, so they add on penalties and fees. Then they keep most of what they collect, both the fees and the principal. Yeah, they collect your $500 a month plus a bunch, but they only pass on $50 to you. If nothing else, that will teach you not to complain*.
Want to bet that if this system becomes law it will be way cheaper to make sure you never even think of allowing your medical insurance to lapse than to let the govmint select “cheap” insurance for you?
*Oddly enough, complaints of failure to pay are way down! Thus proving how effective their system is! I’d bet Edwards plan would be very effective in a similar fashion. You might choose not to eat but you won’t choose not to have insurance.
Hmm.. Come to think of it, the Russians ended shoplifting the same way: By making sure there was nothing in the stores to steal.
Comment by Darleen on 12/2 @ 11:45 am #
“back premiums with interest and collection costs.â€Â
Actually, Swen, that is how the IRS collects on back taxes. Something they’ve done far longer than how the states (not the feds) collect on child support (there are no monetary penalities for unpaid child support).
Comment by alppuccino on 12/2 @ 12:40 pm #
“Then maybe you’d like to spend some time in federal prison for health care evasion.â€Â
Talk about street cred on the block. Who’s a badder bad ass than the health care evader?
“So I told them to stick their ma-fuckin’ insurance up their ma-fuckin’ ass………..hey, murderer, eat your pussy-ass lunch with the murderers. This here is the health care table. Don’t make me tell you again!”
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 1:52 pm #
“The government will now pick up all of the medical expenses in one way or another and the young man was not denied medical treatment at any level, from EMS to a speciality hospital.”
So he’ll stay in the hospital and get treatment as long as anyone else would? No one will ration his treatment? awesome.
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 2:17 pm #
Add to this, the cost of preschool for all and who knows how many other socialist ideas they have rollinga round in their heads – and yes, we’re fucked.
Lost Dog, I home school my children and they are so conservative it’s almost scary. I actually have to tone it down in front of them, because I don’t believe children should be “political” until they have enough knowledge to make an informed opinion. My oldest is 13, and he’s not there yet. But, of course, I don’t need to counter-act Public School indoctrination.
Personally, I was uninsured until I was married. Risk I took – and I had to pay for a miscarriage out of pocket (got pregnant before the insurance kicked in.) My sil is a MESS of health problems, and it’s completely picked up by you and I. She even got TWO new sets of vaneers/teeth because the drugs rotted them. Every time I hear about the “uninisured” I think of her. Her care has to (easily) be above the million dollar mark.
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 2:19 pm #
Yes Andy, you ass. He’ll probably get better treatment than if he were on some of the managed care plans.
I’ve had SEVERAL experiences with care for the uninsured. I’m related to them. They get/got medication, hospital treatment, and all the bells and whistles. Shit, my sil has nicer looking teeth than I do. She’s on her second set, because her first ones didn’t “feel right.”
Comment by B Moe on 12/2 @ 2:20 pm #
“So he’ll stay in the hospital and get treatment as long as anyone else would? No one will ration his treatment?”
I had to buy hamburger instead of steak today because the grocery was rationing meat. You should look into this, andy.
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 2:22 pm #
I once had a maternity nurse tell me about how a girl who suspects herself pregnant can save the $15 pregnancy test by going into the ER and complaining of a stomach ache. FREE PREGNANCY TESTS!!! Happens all the time.
I mean, why spend $15 of your own money, when you can ring up a couple hundred dollars (of useless tests) on someone else’s dime?
Comment by Darleen on 12/2 @ 2:40 pm #
Carin
I home school my children
Brava!
If my girls were grade school age, I’d do it. As it was, I vetted the schools in my area, so all of them attended parochial schools through 3rd grade, then went to a magnet schools.
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 2:52 pm #
Thanks Darleen. I think it’s because I home school that the whole univeral pre-school think really irks me. Watching the Dem debate, and watching them pander to the stupid about education drove me batty.
American children fall behind NOT in pre-school, or elementary school. It’s middle school onward. Yet, those idiots can just stay the stupidest thing EVA – it’s all just a cover for 1)Free childcare and 2) expanding the power of teacher’s unions. Plus, pretending to be the party of “education.”
Did i just go on a tangent? Sorry, but I’m doing my best to avoid that “other” thread.
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 2:53 pm #
Hey, you know Rachel Lucas has this thing where you can edit your comments for forty-five after posting. I’m just saying …
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 3:03 pm #
“Yes Andy, you ass. He’ll probably get better treatment than if he were on some of the managed care plans.”
So why have insurance? Why did little graeme frost need schip if he could just waltz in and get his treatment?
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 3:10 pm #
I’m going to assume that the Frost’s weren’t willing to do what some must do to go on welfare/Aid. I don’t know enough about that case, but they had a house, I believe. They probably had resources they didn’t want to give up. Didn’t the kids go to private school as well? They chose their jobs/careers, and (assuming they had a bit of smarts) knew that not having insurance was a risk. I know people who work ONLY FOR the insurance.
But, believe me – my sil has been on aid (medicare) for 12 years now. She is diabetic with 60% liver failure. Should it get bad enough (and she gets off the bottle) you and I will pay for the transplant. Doesn’t seem like a good investment, does it?
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 3:21 pm #
“I’m going to assume that the Frost’s weren’t willing to do what some must do to go on welfare/Aid.”
They were on welfare / aid. Thats schip.
“Didn’t the kids go to private school as well?”
on vouchers.
“I know people who work ONLY FOR the insurance. ”
So it seems like its not the case that they can get better treatment by being uninsured.
“he is diabetic with 60% liver failure. Should it get bad enough (and she gets off the bottle) you and I will pay for the transplant. Doesn’t seem like a good investment, does it?”
I don’t think its an investment at all. Things like preventative care, policies to get kids to eat better, and discourage unhealthy habits would be investments. Nanny state totalitarian investments.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/2 @ 3:22 pm #
Why bother responding to actus – I mean, andy? It doesn’t ever say what it wants to do and support that.
There is no debate with a ‘bot.
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 3:55 pm #
“I’m going to assume that the Frost’s weren’t willing to do what some must do to go on welfare/Aid.â€Â
They were on welfare / aid. Thats schip.
I was under the impression that they weren’t on anything; didn’t have insurance and then the one child got into an accident. Shrug, honestly I don’t care.
Personally, I wouldn’t have had kids if I hadn’t had a way to insure them. And, I would have gone to rather desperate lengths to get them insured. People find themselves in circumstance, though, and in my experience the current safety nets in place to a pretty good job.
“I know people who work ONLY FOR the insurance. â€Â
So it seems like its not the case that they can get better treatment by being uninsured.
No, the case would be that many people prefer to actually support themselves and not go onto government aid. I know,a kookie idea, people are so crazy. It’s a choice thing.
“he is diabetic with 60% liver failure. Should it get bad enough (and she gets off the bottle) you and I will pay for the transplant. Doesn’t seem like a good investment, does it?â€Â
I don’t think its an investment at all. Things like preventative care, policies to get kids to eat better, and discourage unhealthy habits would be investments. Nanny state totalitarian investments.
Oh, nannystate at it’s most innane. My sil has type 1 diabetes, so no amount of child-healthy eating would have solved that. But, you are right that she is somewhat responsible for her condition, since she is an alcoholic. I suppose in government funded aid we would just cut off addicts from care? I mean, it “is” money down the drain; good money after bad and all that.
OH, right … addiction is a sickness … NEW LIVER FOR MY SIL!
Regardless, my sil, under government managed care, can do whatever she wants, and we as a society keep propping her up. The only thing keeping her from a liver is that there are pesky guildlines for transplants; it is that which keeps her from the new liver, not welfare limiting her care. While the super-rich (didn’t some singer get a liver a few years back?) may be able to bribe their way around such stuff, most (even the wealthy) cannot. I should know, since I am an organ donor and know the process rather intimately.
Comment by JHoward on 12/2 @ 4:18 pm #
Sure thing, actus.
There are no Bradley Amendment, property confiscation, ruined credit, and jail time for not being insured.
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 4:55 pm #
“No, the case would be that many people prefer to actually support themselves and not go onto government aid. I know,a kookie idea, people are so crazy.”
Thats really why they’re doing it, when they know they could get better care for free? Surprising.
“My sil has type 1 diabetes, so no amount of child-healthy eating would have solved that. ”
The nanny state wouldn’t be investing in just her.
“I suppose in government funded aid we would just cut off addicts from care? I mean, it “is†money down the drain; good money after bad and all that.”
That sounds like bad policy.
“While the super-rich (didn’t some singer get a liver a few years back?) may be able to bribe their way around such stuff, most (even the wealthy) cannot.”
I did not know that.
Comment by McGehee on 12/2 @ 5:15 pm #
I suspect you are very much practiced at saying those words.
Comment by McGehee on 12/2 @ 5:16 pm #
Here’s another chance to practice them: “Water is wet.”
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 5:21 pm #
How much for a mustache ride?
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 5:26 pm #
“No, the case would be that many people prefer to actually support themselves and not go onto government aid. I know,a kookie idea, people are so crazy.â€Â
Thats really why they’re doing it, when they know they could get better care for free? Surprising.
Well, I’m sure the thought that they will, in addition to having health insurance, also have some cash and can particate in our great Capitalistic system may influence their decision to work as well. I really don’t find it a hard concept to grasp that someone would rather WORK and pick a health-care program, instead of simply accepting whatever the government is gonna give you. It’s about choice. Plus, avoiding government bullshit/paperwork.
“My sil has type 1 diabetes, so no amount of child-healthy eating would have solved that. â€Â
The nanny state wouldn’t be investing in just her.
“I suppose in government funded aid we would just cut off addicts from care? I mean, it “is†money down the drain; good money after bad and all that.â€Â
That sounds like bad policy.
Well, actually almost every penny spent to keep her alive is wasted, imho, since she is determined to piss every ounce of health away. But, it’s not HER money, right? But that is neither here nor there. In regards to the nannystate “investing” by dictating healthy habits, personally I would rather be driven by my own selfish desires versus having the government slap my hand if I smoke or drink. I am motivated to work out and watch my weight because I desire to stay healthy and avoid higher medical costs. Kookie, huh?!?
Comment by Carin on 12/2 @ 5:27 pm #
Ok, Andy’s hit the bottle.
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 5:42 pm #
“I really don’t find it a hard concept to grasp that someone would rather WORK and pick a health-care program, instead of simply accepting whatever the government is gonna give you.”
Its just that you made it sound like the care the uninsured get is the best care of all.
“Well, actually almost every penny spent to keep her alive is wasted, imho, since she is determined to piss every ounce of health away.”
I can see the provider, private or not, deciding that a particular procedure won’t help because of how the patient responds. I also see it being not her money whichever one it is
Comment by Darleen on 12/2 @ 6:13 pm #
Its just that you made it sound like the care the uninsured get is the best care of all.
No andy, that’s your preception. Someone says ‘purple’ and you say ’sounds like yellow to me’.
And people insure themselves not because the care they get is better or worse than the uninsured, but because they have assets other than their own health to insure. Contrary to progressive opinion doctors, nurses, emts, et al, have to eat, too.
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 6:19 pm #
“No andy, that’s your preception. ”
Its what I got from this.
“Yes Andy, you ass. He’ll probably get better treatment than if he were on some of the managed care plans.”
“And people insure themselves not because the care they get is better or worse than the uninsured, but because they have assets other than their own health to insure.”
I think we’re talking about people who are getting care for free, not those who pay.
Comment by Mike C. on 12/2 @ 6:30 pm #
And IRS levies are even worse. Someone I worked with had one. This was someone who made a good living but the levy essentially reduced him to making minimum wage. It continued for more than twice as long as necessary to satisfy the debt he owed. The letter that HR receives states that they are under no circumstances to cease garnishing wages until instructed to do so by the IRS.
You’re better off owing anybody money than the IRS. Then there are those who are wrongly assessed. That someone would advocate giving the IRS this additional power is absolutely scary. But we better not monitor the banking transactions of suspected terrorists abroad, though.
Comment by tyree on 12/2 @ 7:05 pm #
Hey, 2. Darleen, what type of contract does someone sign in your state to raise a child?
Comment by Maria on 12/2 @ 8:01 pm #
RE: 3. Comment by Darleen on 12/1 @ 8:28 pm #
“Oh … and the IRS does not share any private information even in child support cases.”
The IRS reports AGI + non-taxable income from
Form 1040 to Social Security for seniors on
Medicare Part B.
Comment by B Moe on 12/2 @ 8:05 pm #
You get that everybody?
“He’ll probably get better treatment than if he were on some of the managed care plans.â€Â
is the same as
“Its just that you made it sound like the care the uninsured get is the best care of all.”
Comment by Pablo on 12/2 @ 8:16 pm #
They’ll damned sure share your tax refund. How that happens without trading your personal information back and forth, I’ll never know. They’ll also share information on who is doing withholding so that states can attach your wages. Again, sounds kinda personal and is open to sharing.
Comment by The Lost Dog on 12/2 @ 8:18 pm #
John Edwards –
Master Proctologist. And YOU pay for the rubber gloves!
Comment by punditius on 12/2 @ 9:17 pm #
How did national health insurance even become a proper subject for government concern?
You know what – like so much else, it can be traced to the income tax. (If you don’t know what I mean, you have no business even discussing this subject. Do some research & you’ll find out.)
The income tax has given the government a plentiful source of funds that the politicians just HAVE to spend. They build bridges to nowhere because the income tax gives them the money for it. The Democrats want to raise government revenues by raising marginal income tax rates. The Republicans want to raise government revenues by decreasing marginal rates. For the most part, the Republicans are right – decreasing marginal rates actually increases tax revenues.
But neither party wants to cut tax revenues. Instead, they both want to set up retirement plans encouraged by the tax system, just different plans. They both want to involve the government in our health care, and use federal money for it, just in different ways. And they both want to control what we do, with our money and our lives, by using the tax system to drive us in the direction they want to go. Edwards is just honest enough to press things to the point they are headed anyway – we will all be required to do what the government thinks is best for us, and the IRS will be the agent of control.
The only way we can regain our liberty is by reducing the money that politicians have to spend. The only way to do that is to somehow move control of the tax system away from the politicians into the hands of the people. I wish I knew how to do that, but I don’t even really think it could be done.
No wonder that there is so much support for Ron Paul, who is an impractical dreamer. Thing is, this health care debate has driven me to the point where I think I’m going to vote for him myself. He’s the only one who wants to let us alone…
Comment by Maria on 12/2 @ 9:57 pm #
RE: 64 Comment by punditius on 12/2 @ 9:17 pm #
Ron Paul is proposing a preemptive income taxation system, i.e.
collection of income taxes before the income is received by the taxpayer.
Ron Paul in his ”Cost of Government Awareness Act of 2007”
[ http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/110/h/h3601.pdf ]
would change the modified quarterly payment calendar [April 15th,
June 15th, September 15th & January 15th] of estimated income taxpayers to a monthly payment calendar beginning with February 15th.
[See Page 4, SEC. 4. MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF ESTIMATED TAXES of the above cited pdf file.] Paul had introduced this same legislation in 2000 [ http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/hr4855.htm ].
For estimated income taxpayers who receive dividends, the monthly
payment schedule would cause taxes to be paid on income not yet
received & in some cases before the date of record. [Dividends
are usually paid quarterly & most often sometime in March; thus
the current first quarterly installment on April 15th is consistent
with a pay-as-you-go tax collection system.] But Ron Paul’s
proposal would set up a pay-before-you-receive tax collection
system.
Comment by andy on 12/2 @ 10:24 pm #
“You get that everybody?”
All that, for free? makes it the best
Comment by The Lost Dog on 12/2 @ 10:30 pm #
Sgt. Ted and Darleen =
You have brought tears to my eyes.
I am trying to get to where I can help my son, but I have a wife who is incredibly intelligent, talented, and out of her mind.
Coming back from an eight count is incredibly difficult.
But, hey! I think John Edwards can take up the slack for me. He makes me want to throw up.
I am going to Google right now.
Thank you both. I have been sent some angels lately, and I think you both might just be part of that miracle.
Dog
Comment by Patrick Carroll on 12/2 @ 11:37 pm #
Forget healthcare, the government is about to give handouts to people who don’t pay thirir bills – *because* they don’t pay their bills.
The time is nigh when it’s better to make a living off the Government than to actually make a living. And yes, penury is not far away.
Comment by maggie katzen on 12/3 @ 2:05 am #
are the paul-bearers really getting that subtle? something seemed…. off. but, damn!
Comment by Maria on 12/3 @ 9:59 am #
RE: 69. Comment by maggie katzen on 12/3 @ 2:05 am #
“are the paul-bearers really getting that subtle? something seemed…. off. but, damn!”
Another problem with Paul’s proposal is that it requires an 8.25% monthly payment. [The current quarterly requirement is 25%.] 8.25% x 12 months = 99%; this is a recipe for penalty & interest for underpayment of estimated income taxes.
The underlying premise of Paul’s legislation vis a vis estimated income tax payers is patently false. Estimated tax payers are aware of how much they are paying; they write checks to the U. S. Treasury four times a year.
Comment by Darleen on 12/3 @ 10:15 am #
Pablo
They’ll damned sure share your tax refund. How that happens without trading your personal information back and forth, I’ll never know. They’ll also share information on who is doing withholding so that states can attach your wages.
Nope. The IRS will accept a lien from a state and IF there is a refund, they’ll attach it and return it to the state. They do NOT share any information vis a vis info on filing. Wage assignments come from employer information reported to the state. States will query each other for the information, it does not come from the IRS.
Comment by Darleen on 12/3 @ 12:27 pm #
#59 tyree
what type of contract does someone sign in your state to raise a child?
If I rent out a room in my home, even if it were to my own adult off-spring, I have entered into a contractual arrangement governed by applicable landlord/tenant law REGARDLESS of whether or not I’ve actually signed a piece of paper.
CA law states that both parents are equally responsible for supporting their (minor children).
Comment by JHoward on 12/3 @ 12:41 pm #
Per your post, apparently US law is about to state that all citizens are responsible for supporting each other’s medical expenses, Darleen. You know, good social law. Because there are never any unintentional consequences that become intentional manipulation of the system.
Not, at least, to good social law.
Comment by Maria on 12/3 @ 2:11 pm #
To Darleen:
In Nov., 2007 I received a letter from the
Social Security Adminstration with the following
information:
“The IRS told us that in 2006 you filed your taxes as Single.
You had an adjusted gross income of $ xxx.00
plus $ xxx.00 in tax-exempt interest income.
We added these amounts together to get your MAGI of $ xxx.00.”
In Dec., 2006 I received a letter from the
Social Security Adminstration with the following
information:
“IRS told us your MAGI in 2005 was $ xxx.00. In 2005, you had an
adjusted gross income of $ xxx.00 plus tax-exempt interest income
of $ xxx.00 and you filed your taxes with a tax filing status of Single.”
[Note: I have substituted "xxx" for the AGI, TEI & MAGI amounts.]
How does the above information square with your statement that:
“Oh … and the IRS does not share any private information even in child support cases.â€Â
Comment by Darleen on 12/3 @ 2:27 pm #
Maria
Whats the problem? The states collect child support. The IRS doesn’t share any of its information with the states. Period. Even for cs.
It is entirely irrelevant what the IRS shares with another federal agency, IE the SocSec Admin… indeed, how would the SSA calculate benefits if it were historically unaware of your income?
This is why it is difficult to track employers of the person who skips out of state owing cs … neither the IRS nor SSA shares that info with state collection agencies.
Comment by Maria on 12/3 @ 2:38 pm #
The SSA does not use AGI or TEI to calculate benefits.
Comment by Pablo on 12/3 @ 2:40 pm #
Yes, they do. If you’re employed and your employer is withholding and reporting properly, the state child support agencies will know where you work post haste. It’s not at all difficult for them.
Comment by JHoward on 12/3 @ 3:35 pm #
Please stop disrespecting good social law, Pablo. Because such information-sharing cannot be a component of good social law.
Next thing we know, you’ll be pointing out that it’s a felony or something for an employer to withhold withheld CS funds.
Or that UIFSA stands for Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.
Since 1950, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) has been the primary mechanism used to resolve interstate litigation of family support cases. Although URESA and the revisions thereto (most recently the 1968 [R]evised URESA} Were considered revolutionary when created and remained so far many decades thereafter, they failed to reflect the advent of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act or technological advances. Recognizing the dramatic changes in child support enforcement since the 1968 revisions, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) promulgated the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) in 1992 to replace[R}URESA. UIFSA was drafted over 3 ½ years with Substantial input from judges, private and public attorneys, State legislators, and the Professional child support enforcement community. During the summer of 1996, NCCUSL, approved amendments to UIFSA, mostly designed to correct misinterpretations and fill in oversights. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 required States to have UISFA in effect by January 1, 1998, including the 1996 amendments officially adopted by NCCUSL. UIFSA has been enacted in all States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
—-
The Federal Case Registry (FCR) and CSENet’s role: The FCR, implemented on October 1, 1998,
consists of information on individuals in IV-D cases and on non IV-D orders entered or modified after
October 1, 1998. This information includes, but is not limited to, names, Social Security numbers (SSNs)
uniform identification numbers, and State case identification numbers. In addition, the FCR contains an
order indication that will identify whether an order have been entered in the case. The FCR has been
designed as a pointer system that will quickly provide information to enable States to identify other States
that have an order pertaining to the same individuals.
Oops.
Comment by Darleen on 12/3 @ 3:44 pm #
JH
I guess you’d like the feds and states to stop pursuing parents who take off with their kids, too.
Cuz if support is money, its also visitation/custody. Enforce one but not the other, eh?
Comment by Darleen on 12/3 @ 3:46 pm #
Pablo
that’s a state to state thing
Believe me. If a parent wants to take off to another state, be self-employed and file his/her taxes so that they don’t receive a refund, then the other parent is out-of-luck either locating them through the IRS or getting any tax intercept.
Comment by Pablo on 12/3 @ 4:00 pm #
The key words being “self employed” and “so that they don’t receive a refund” in which case there’s nothing to garnish and nothing to take. But if you’re regularly employed, and there’s a child support order, they’ll find you nearly immediately.
Why start now? It’s not like there’s any money in it.
Comment by JHoward on 12/3 @ 4:32 pm #
You mean kidnappers? Already illegal (or sure, I’d support it as God’s gift to human behavior, along with rape, murder, child abuse, pillaging and bank fraud.)
And by national policy, already sworn into divorce agreements, come to think of it. One of the tiny few things contractual about the Marriage Contract (damn them.) Just to clear that up.
But yeah, you guess I’m all about chaos, because that’s just the way us anarchists comport oursef’s. Which is why I never protest the chaotic, amoral, cutthroat, political world of family law. Not me.
Good point: There is near-zip enforcement of visitation while there’s nearly universal enforcement of either child support or the War on Fathers in the name of child support. Has to do with that ~20% of post-divorce parents “enjoying” their “awarded” equal child “visitation”.
Because of good social law.
Comment by JHoward on 12/3 @ 4:44 pm #
What is, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), or the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)?
I fully appreciate the profound differences between good social law and that other stuff, as well as the role of a truly responsible
mobdemocracy to ensure that the former rightly exists and the latter never may or could, but Darleen, I have to admit that just occasionally the similarities alarm even me.Then I refresh myself with brisk handfuls of cold water and return to my senses!
Comment by vincenzo on 12/3 @ 11:15 pm #
Carin,
I’m in agreement with your points in the comments, but please: what the hell is a “sil”?
Pingback by Nannystatism watch - We don't serve your kind in here [Darleen Click] on 2/1 @ 9:36 pm #
[...] Edwards and his plan for mandatory health checkups may be gone, but it looks like his brand of micro-meddling has popped up in Mississippi, where [...]
Trackback by National Insurance Credits on 2/2 @ 1:22 am #
National Health Insurance In America, Part 1
President Clinton did not and now President Bush will not address health care reform in a way that deviates even slightly from the HMO and Managed Care Industries that have given large sums of money to both campaigns to keep them quiet. Thus these spec…
Comment by http://www.insuremeplease.net on 8/12 @ 4:03 pm #
…